Family Recipes

M

Meeeeee

New member
I have yet to understand why someone would purposefully delete a key ingredient to a recipe when a family member compliments their accomplishment.

So silly...and illustrates massive insecurity. bless their hearts...

OK...Jill... what are rivlets?...haven't heard that "phrase" before.
 
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:01:39 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:


And there are lots more who say they just made this or that, but don't
provide a recipe or even a url (if it came from the internet). Why we
have to beg is beyond me.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
sf wrote:


I am happy to provide recipes upon request, but why should I go to the
trouble of typing them out if nobody has expressed any interest?

Bob
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:14:46 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
wrote:

Most people don't have to do that.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
In article ,
sf wrote:


Well, sometimes, it's just a menu being mentioned or an obscure
recipe that takes some extra time to type, so why do it if others don't
want it, or it was made up on the fly, or one doesn't follow recipes,
or... There are myriad reasons someone wouldn't automatically include
recipes. Though, if there is a known url, I agree that ought to be
appended.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:04:33 -0700, Ranee at Arabian Knits
wrote:


Of course there are the few odd times that can happen, but what I was
thinking about were the times when posters had the recipe in their
computer or got it from the internet. It's the Marie Romano syndrome
(Everybody Loves Raymond). I get tired of that quickly. This *is* a
cooking ng after all, so posting the recipe they're talking/bragging
about is just good form.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On 20/04/2011 7:28 PM, sf wrote:



There could be a number of reasons. There is some effort in trying out a
recipe that others may not be at all interested in trying. It may be
that the person has already posted it and is not interested in typing it
out again and again.
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:16:47 -0400, Dave Smith
wrote:


Then why bring it up? It's an ego thing to have people beg.

None of the above apply most of the time, especially the retyping
part. I also don't appreciate the flippant, "I've posted this before"
with no recipe. I'm supposed to search for a recipe the poster has at
their fingertips in the computer? No thanks. If it's in a
cookbook... here's a clue - scan the page and tinypic it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
In article ,
sf wrote:


You assume that the person kept a copy of the typed recipe and that
everyone has access to a scanner. I often type recipes here and don't
keep a copy, because it is something I make often enough that I don't
need to do so or because I only typed it up because someone asked. For
someone imputing egotistic motives to, you are sure making a lot of
upper-middle class assumptions about possessions, too.

Regards,
Ranee @ Arabian Knits

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
 
On Apr 20, 6:28?pm, Chemo the Clown wrote:

Are they made by pushing dough through a sieve with large round holes?
I know those by another name I can't think of right now. Spaetzele?

Jerry
--
"The rights of the best of men are secured only as the
rights of the vilest and most abhorrent are protected."
- Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1927
 
sf wrote:


Don't have to type them out? Sorry, I don't have a flatbed scanner at the
moment, so if I want to post recipes from a cookbook onto RFC it *has* to be
typed.

When was the last time YOU typed a recipe and posted it here, rather and
copying and pasting from an online source?

Bob
 
sf wrote:


No, it really isn't. There's no point in expending effort to type a recipe
nobody wants to see. I'm not the only one who has pointed that out to you,
but you keep on acting as if your laziness is *their* fault.



That's all bullshit to cover up the fact that you are lazy. Not only are you
too lazy to search for the previously-posted recipe, you're even too lazy to
*ask* someone to post a recipe. And you don't even come *close* to
practicing what you preach.

Bob
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:53:20 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
wrote:


Why should I when that's what I used? At least it's a recipe instead
of an "I made this thing you've never heard of, but I'm not giving you
a clue what it is" type comment.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:59:37 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
wrote:

It's their recipe, therefore it's up to them to post it. I'm over
searching.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
sf wrote:


Some of us actually use cookbooks for recipes. You're asking people to go to
a LOT more trouble than you're willing to take.



Nobody does that (though JL sometimes comes close, with his French usage).
If you're so ignorant that you can't recognize culinary terms, and you're so
lazy that you can't be bothered to find out what they mean, and you're also
so lazy that you're not even willing to *ask* what they mean, then your
discomfort with the state of affairs is entirely your own fault.

Bob
 
"Bob Terwilliger" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I rarely have to refer to cookbooks any more. I find if I need a recipe
even from a cookbook I can almost always find *it* online! I hate typing
out recipes. I would much rather find something that I can just print off
online.
 
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:14:46 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
arranged random neurons and said:


I'm with Bob on this one. I just posted my Easter menu and would be
delighted to furnish recipes upon request. Seemed pretty silly to post
an entire menu worth of recipes.

No, no need of begging! A simple check made out to "Cash" will suffice
:)

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"
 
Back
Top